The National Academies’ commission’s report — “Review of the Department of Homeland Security’s Approach to Risk Analysis” — does, however, approve of the Department’s current risk approach on natural disasters. The 150-page study can be downloaded here.

There are few more important aspects of homeland security than risk analysis, particularly in how the government allocates its resources, deals with threats and communicates with all its stakeholders including the public. And, the Department is working on improving things in this area.

Federal News Radio did an interview yesterday with commission chair John F. Ahearne about the report. It can be heard here.

The Obama Administration has said that public readiness is a priority and has taken steps to strengthen the involvement of Americans in their own homeland security. However, officials acknowledge that there is still a ways to go. I present these proposals to help move forward citizen preparedness on a local, state and national level. I hope these suggestions can be a useful addition to the policy discussion and have submitted it to the Federal Preparedness Task Force. As always, I welcome your feedback:

1) CREATE CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE — The lack of progress to date on public readiness and engagement underscores the need to develop new ways of approaching the issue. DHS Secretary Napolitano should create a Citizen Preparedness Outreach Task Force to assess the current state of public readiness and work on developing new approaches. At present, there is no clear social education analog to civilian emergency preparedness that can be easily pulled off the shelf so it will take some work to develop an effective program. In fact, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism in its final report recommended the Administration make citizen engagement a priority. But Chairman Bob Graham told me that the ‘WMD Commission’ did not did not find anything suitable it could recommend, and that something new has to be developed.

2) BETTER DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE “PREPARED” “READY” AND/OR “RESILIENT” — An American Red Cross survey indicated that 93% of Americans are not prepared for disasters. The truth is that no one can be fully prepared, but there is a need to offer the public a clearer definition — including a minimum level — of preparedness. That might include creating a family communications plan and storing tangible supplies but also knowing more about potential threats that every American should know. That doesn’t mean overwhelming people with too much information, but making sure they are at least familiar with some basics. (For example, the first time citizens hear about a ‘dirty bomb’ from government officials should not be in the moments after one has been exploded.) In addition to the content questions, there is also a word meaning issue to deal with as well. The Obama Administration has been emphasizing the concept of societal resilience. Should emergency management officials be talking about citizen resilience in their communities rather than preparedness or readiness?

3) SUPPORT & REPORT ON STATE/LOCAL PREPAREDNESS EFFORTS — Provide adequate seed money for state and local government to bolster civilian preparedness programs and link the grants to performance. Encourage authorities to report publicly on their level of citizen preparedness and create metrics for better measuring civilian readiness. Find interested governors to take on leadership roles and create pilot models in their states. There is a need to employ both “bottom/up” and “top/down” approaches to disaster preparedness combining state, local and community leadership and citizen involvement with federal commitment and focus. Ensure that government authorities can competently respond to disasters but also more strongly emphasize the need for the public and local communities to be prepared and self-reliant, particularly in the first 72 hours after a disaster.

4) HIGHLIGHT & SPREAD MODELS FROM AROUND U.S. & OTHER COUNTRIES — There is a need to help promote and implement best practices from communities around the U.S. and draw, where applicable, particularly from British and Israeli experiences. One model may be the United Kingdom’s National Risk Register, which sets out publicly the government’s assessment of the likelihood and potential impact of a range of different public health, natural and terrorist risks. It is designed to increase awareness of the kinds of risks the UK faces, and encourage individuals and organizations to think about their own preparedness. The Register also includes details of what the Government and first responders are doing to prepare for those emergencies and the role of citizens in those plans

5) USE ‘CARROTS’ TO CHANGE PUBLIC BEHAVIOR – Provide a tax write-off for citizens to buy preparedness-related products as a way to promote participation and to signal governmental commitment. Encourage states to create tax-free periods as is being done in Virginia and Louisiana (and has been introduced in the New York legislature). Also, consider targeting assistance to citizens who cannot afford to prepare. The fact is that when we really want to change social behavior as a nation we do it through the carrot or the stick. The carrot is the preferable tool for this issue, but it needs to be used. And, thus far, incentives (and vegetables) have largely been missing from the preparedness effort, which helps explain the lack of progress. Similarly, preparedness disincentives in the law should be removed (ie. in some places, homeowners who retrofit their homes face higher tax assessments.)

6) BRING IN BUSINESS TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED ‘WIN-WIN-WIN-WIN’ PUBLIC PREPAREDNESS MARKETING CAMPAIGNS– Design and roll out a full service preparedness marketing campaign with help from the private and non-profit sectors. Galvanize business to take on disaster preparedness in the same way they have with disaster response, most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (ie. big box stores, packaged goods manufacturers, bottled water companies, wireless industry). Work with companies in preparedness-related businesses to offer major discounts tied to citizens taking actual readiness steps recommended by Ready.Gov and local emergency management offices.

For example, individuals and families come into ‘big box’ stores with emergency communications plans (or fill them out in the store) and in return they would receive a significant discount on supplies or free products (ie. if you purchase a case of bottled water, you would get your emergency supply thrown in for free). And if a customer signed up to volunteer for CERT or the Red Cross Disaster Services, they would get a bigger discount. Mobile phone retail stores would be excellent settings for preparedness events/trainings to help people register for government emergency text/e-mail alerts. I’d also like to see an event/photo-op with kids teaching their parents about texting and its role in an emergency. Here again, the companies would offer customers extra free text/phone minutes for completing the preparedness step.

7) DON’T BE AFRAID TO TELL THE CHILDREN — Put more emphasis on educating young people on preparedness by piggybacking on other related school-based social education efforts, most prominently fire safety. The challenge is the both the decentralization of the nation’s education system and the already high curricula demands on teachers. Yet, an effective fire education program was implemented in the schools beginning in the 1970’s, and there would seem to be a perfect fit to integrate a preparedness module into that existing program. The federal government should work with state and local officials as well as fire and education officials to determine how best to accomplish that objective.

FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate recently suggested expanding the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program for young people. I believe that a decision to expand CERT-type training in the schools would be welcomed on a bipartisan basis.There should be more public briefings on how personal tech would be helpful in an emergency, before the emergency (including how Twitter, Facebook and one’s smart phone can be invaluable). Further, every governmental preparedness web site should add a cell phone and an extra battery (or other power source) to the basic components of their recommended disaster supply kit.  Many private companies are working on applications for citizen emergency communications. Those business efforts need to be integrated with official alerts (ie. the new iteration of the Emergency Alert System) and unofficial citizen-based social media (as well as the news media). Both the content and distribution channels of emergency communications are changing and new models need to be developed.

8 EMBRACE AND ACCELERATE PREPAREDNESS 2.0 – There is a need to better inform the public on the potential of 21st century personal technology to prepare for and respond to 21st century emergencies. We must make Americans more aware of the capabilities of the technology at their fingertips (ie. wireless devices, social media sites) in advance and integrate it into disaster planning and response. The public’s new ability to access and distribute information offers both an opportunity and a challenge to government authorities.

There should be more public briefings on how personal tech would be helpful in a crisis, before the crisis (including how Twitter, Facebook and one’s smart phone can be invaluable). Further, every governmental preparedness web site should add a cell phone and an extra battery (or other power source) to the basic components of their recommended disaster supply kit. Many private companies are working on content and distribution applications for citizen emergency communications. Those business efforts can complement official efforts (ie. the new iteration of the Emergency Alert System) and unofficial citizen-based social media (and well as the news media). One hugely promising initiative is CrisisCommons which over the past year has created groups of volunteers throughout the world to bring technology to bear on disaster response issues.

9) FIND POLITICAL, CELEBRITY PREPAREDNESS SPOKESPEOPLE – During the time that I have covered the topic of citizen emergency preparedness, one of the most surprising things I’ve found is that there is no major elected official who has taken the lead on the issue. It’s surprising for a number of reasons: natural disasters and terrorism dominate the headlines and will continue to for the foreseeable future; citizen preparedness is pretty much an unassailable, bipartisan, patriotic and community-building topic; and even the smallest interest in Washington has at least one political champion (but not public preparedness). And, with much to do, there is a great opportunity to have a positive policy and political impact. To some in the readiness community, the absence of star power on the issue has been one reason for the lack of public attention. Though celebrities have been eager to participate in fundraising efforts after catastrophes like the Haiti effort), there is no big star who is singularly identified as a spokesperson for emergency preparedness.

10) GIVE THE PUBLIC MORE INFO SO THEY CAN BETTER PREPARE & PARTICIPATE – There is a need to better inform the public when it comes to disaster preparedness so they can not only ready themselves and their families but also be part of the policy debate. Let me mention two areas briefly:

a) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): In its report, the WMD Commission argues that the incoming Administration should make an effort to inform and engage the public on the subject of WMD’s. I agree. And, I suggest officials consider starting that process by defining (or redefining) what a WMD actually is. At present, it is most common to define a WMD for the public as a chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (or “CBRN”) weapon.

The Commission report, however, focuses primarily on the dangers of biological and nuclear terrorism, both of which could be absolutely catastrophic. By contrast, a chemical or radiological (better known as a ‘dirty bomb’) weapon could be very serious but would likely not cause as much lasting damage. In fact, both a chemical and radiological attack would likely be a one-shot event seriously impacting those directly near the event, closer in result to a ‘traditional’ terrorist bombing. A nuclear bomb or biological incident, however, could have wide and long-lasting ‘mass destruction’ impact to humans, property and the society itself. We don’t want the public — and the nation as a whole — to overreact to some threats and underreact to others.

b) Risk: I think it may be one of the most important homeland security subjects for both the government and the public, because it highlights some of the tradeoffs involved in determining how to allocate the nation’s security resources and the role of risk management in making those decisions. This is a debate which should include the public. Right now, Americans aren’t engaged in the discussion over the security, financial, logistical and time tradeoffs involved in our own homeland security.

We need to introduce risk management into homeland security which would lead us to ask and answer important questions: What improves our security and resiliency? And what can be done at a reasonable social and financial cost? Those answers should come not only from policymakers but with the guidance of the public itself.

The public should be asked: How much risk do you want to pay for? How much inconvenience do you want to deal with? These are dilemmas we deal with everyday in our lives; we need to bring that same approach to homeland security and disaster preparedness. FEMA’s Fugate has since his days in Florida made the point that natural hazards turn into natural disasters because of man-made decisions on development, including ubiquitous golf courses: “You can tee off in Tallahassee and play through to Pensacola,” he likes to say.  ”Unless the public understands we need to change where we develop and live, it won’t matter.” It is up to elected officials to present those choices, including building codes, levies and insurance incentives.

11) ‘SEE AND SAY’ SOMETHING MORE – Build upon the initial success of ‘See Something, Say Something’ -type citizen information campaigns by providing the public with more specific guidance on how to assist law enforcement and, without giving away sources and methods, offering more feedback on the information they have provided. Law enforcement officials are concerned about societal complacency nine years since 9/11, but have not determined how to communicate to the public a more candid – yet calm and balanced – picture of the threat and how they can best help. The Department of Homeland Security is expanding “See Something, Say Something” nationally, which is a positive development. However, there is still a need to better explain to citizens their role, particularly at a local level. One important question is how much of what new information and training given to law enforcement about terrorism prevention should also be provided to the public.

12) MEDIA SHOULD COVER PREPAREDNESS AS WELL AS DISASTERS – While the press does wall-to-wall coverage on natural disasters and has covered practically every aspect of terrorism story closely, it has largely overlooked advance public preparedness. By contrast, during the Cold War, magazines ranging from Life to Modern Farmer dedicated entire issues to civilian readiness. Obviously, the press’ role is not to serve as a publicity arm of the government, but it is a topic that deserves more attention. And without more media coverage, it will be difficult to break through to the public. One great example of the press as a unique asset is the list of preparedness tips and lessons learned from the disaster survivors that was collected by the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

13) GOVERNMENT PREPAREDNESS OUTREACH NEEDS TO BE FAR MORE INTERACTIVE — Right now, if a member of the public has a question about the preparedness process, there is nowhere to go. And, as someone who does a lot of public outreach on street fairs, radio or in community meetings I hear a lot of questions from average citizens about emergency readiness — ie. Shouldn’t buildings have mandatory emergency drills? Shouldn’t everyone have a solar charger in your ‘go-bag’ to be able recharge a cellphone or radio? Shouldn’t you have an evacuation family meeting spot outside of the City in case there is major disaster? In case of an emergency, where should we go for information? The emergency management community on a national, state and local level must overhaul its public information operations to be able to address those questions directly and lead the public through what can be a challenging process to undertake.

14) ‘DO ASK, DO TELL’: MAKE “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” MORE CENTRAL TO PREPAREDNESS MESSAGING — Instead of telling people to prepare because it is a responsibility (you need to do this), government has used a softer ask when it comes to trying to get the public to prepare. To me, the it is time to try to do more “telling” and less “asking”. I don’t believe the government should be afraid to explicitly tell the public that each of us can either hinder or help relief efforts by what they decide to do before and during a disaster. And, that it’s up to each of us to choose.

If indeed preparing for disasters is a responsibility of citizenship (which I think it should be), then it should been positioned that way. PSA’s saying that people are imperiling the lives of first responders and their fellow citizens, particularly the vulnerable (ie. the elderly, disabled) not to mention your own family might be treated with a little more urgency. Another potentially useful messaging approach was suggested to me by former Miss Utah Jill Shepherd who used citizen preparedness as her pageant platform. It can (and should) be included in the preparedness pitch that readying yourself and your family for disaster at home is a way civilians can contribute to the nation’s resilience and complement the work and sacrifice of those serving in the military. Preparedness may be the most important contribution most citizens can make to their nation’s security. Not only will civilians likely be the first on the scene of a major emergency, but the nation’s response will only be as strong as the readiness of the weakest link. We have entered the ‘pro-am’ preparedness era where the government needs to hand off some responsibility and the public needs to take it.

15) INTEGRATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS INTO OTHER COMMUNITY ISSUES — Emergency preparedness is an important issue, particularly during crises. However, it has a better chance of becoming ingrained into American society if it is viewed as part of other preparedness topics that are a more central part of Americans daily life, including public health (immunization), security (Neighborhood Watch), infrastructure and climate change, part and parcel of just being ready for any situation.

For example, the global warming campaign can and should be a model for civilian emergency preparedness in a variety of ways. The two efforts are complementary and should be linked closer together in the public’s mind — and actions. In both, society is being asked to mobilize in order to avert or mitigate potential disasters, and both are part of strengthening the nation’s general national resilience. Yes, global warming has some skeptics, but so does emergency preparedness — ironically they are often not the same people which may conveniently add to its complementary synergy.

16) EXPAND EMERGENCY DRILLING OPPORTUNITIES TO PUBLIC –Increase chances for citizens to participate in disaster drills, which would help people focus on the issue and work through the key questions everyone should ask before a disaster (ie. How will you get information and communicate with your family? Do you know the emergency plan of your children’s school?). Most every top homeland security/emergency management official I have interviewed has told me that broader public disaster exercises would be helpful in a number of ways, but there has not been a concerted effort to expand drilling opportunities to the public.

17) DETERMINE BEST USE OF CIVILIAN DISASTER VOLUNTEERS – Craig Fugate said recently that FEMA would be reevaluating the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). I think that as part of that review government and non profit officials should be looking at how best to recruit and deploy disaster volunteers. Post-9/11 and Katrina — as well as with international incidents such as Haiti — there has been great interest among the public to be involved in crisis response. A key question is how that asset should be managed. Should it be the government? The Red Cross? Other non-profits and faith-based institutions? Business? Or a combination of the four? One hugely promising initiative is CrisisCommons which over the past year has created groups of volunteers throughout the world to bring technology to bear on disaster response issues.

Fugate said that FEMA is considering major changes in the CERT program, including creating a shorter training course which could be offered to more Americans and significantly expanding training for schools and other youth groups in order to better imbed preparedness into society for the long-term. I’ve always felt that CERT training is less about the skills you learn and more about awareness about the community and the various emergency authorities (and identifying citizen crisis organizers in advance). To me, CERT is just basic citizenship training for the 21st Century, which I think every American should get a chance to receive. I might suggest that the smaller reduced curriculum be called something along the lines of “Citizen Resilience Training”.

18) ESTABLISH AN OFFICIAL PREPAREDNESS DAY — Create a National Preparedness Day to focus public attention before disasters, including briefing citizens, conducting drills, and filling emergency kits. A helpful model is Japan’s Disaster Prevention Day held on September 1st, the anniversary of the catastrophic 1923 Tokyo earthquake. Earlier this month, 670,000 Japanese participated in emergency drills around the country. China, since its 8.0-magnitude 2008 Sichuan Province earthquake, has also held two national disaster prevention days with nationwide drills.

If we as a nation feel it is really important for the public to develop emergency plans, it would be far more effective if everyone was doing that at the same time — rather than asking individuals to do it on their own. This ‘preparedness day’ would also be the time that we all asked the questions about planning then practiced and updated those plans. It would be useful for both responders and the public. I might suggest September 11th be made the U.S.’s official Day. It would seem to be appropriate to honor the memories of those who died by action, particularly something aimed at making sure America is never as unprepared again.

19) CREATE CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS OFFICE – Establishing a national citizen preparedness/resilience office to highlight and help coordinate efforts around the U.S. and ensure citizen preparedness remains a priority. Right now, there is not an identifiable place in the federal government that has responsibility for coordinating the public’s role in preparedness. Work with American Red Cross to create an effective advocate for the general public on emergency preparedness in the same way disabled and pet groups have done for the disaster needs of their communities over the past several years.

20) BUNDLE CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS PROPOSALS TOGETHER INTO “CITIZEN PREPAREDNESS INITIATIVE” – For too long, well meaning public preparedness efforts have gotten lost or have been ignored by the public. That’s in large part because they have not been packaged and presented as being specifically directed to citizens. But if the government would assemble these small disparate proposals listed above into an overall citizen preparedness package it would have a better chance of getting attention and gaining some traction. Ultimately, making inroads on citizen preparedness is less a matter of money than it is of focus and attention.

Melissa Short’s “Cybersecurity Starts Here” campaign was one of the winners of the National Cyber Awareness Challenge “which called on members of the public and private sector companies to develop creative and innovative ways to enhance awareness of the importance of cybersecurity and safeguard America’s computer systems and networks from attacks.”

Melissa Short, DHS Cyber Challenge Winner

The Challenge, which Secretary Napolitano announced in March, received more than 80 proposals, from which seven were selected which will help inform the National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign. It is designed to engage the American public, the private sector and state and local governments in efforts to guard against cyber threats and communicate strategies for the public to help keep themselves, their families and communities safer online. The Campaign will kick off in October 2010, in conjunction with National Cybersecurity Awareness Month.

It is also another deliverable on Secretary Napolitano’s pledge to begin “engaging and empowering our citizens to be part of collective effort” towards “creating a culture of awareness And preparation”. Cybersecurity has become more central to the nation’s homeland security and in fact was mentioned for first time in President Obama’s National Preparedness Month proclamation this year.

Short told me in an interview that in her campaign entry she wanted to make cybersecurity more accessible and doable for the average citizen: ”How do we make cyber security relevant to their lives? But give them steps they can actually do.”

“There’s no silver bullet. It won’t happen overnight,” she says, adding, ”I hope we can get a dialogue when we’re talking about security. Get a discussion going among the public.” Short works at the U.S. Veterans Administration in Roanoke, Virginia in information technology, but  says she is “non-technical” so she feels she can understand both the expert and non-expert worlds.

DHS spokesperson Meredith Isola explained why DHS reached out to the public:

“Everyone has a stake in cybersecurity –- and we believe that all Americans can be part of the solution to keeping our cyberspace safe. And so we knew that by tapping into some of the wisdom and creativity of the public and cyber experts, we could come up with some great ideas for getting the word out more broadly.”

“Every day Americans are incorporating new and innovative technologies into their lives. We’ve come to rely on computers, smartphones and many other online resources at home, at work and at school. That heightens the need for every single one of us – young or old, computer savvy or not – to learn about the potential threats and how to stay safe online.”

According to Short’s campaign proposal:

“Cybersecurity Starts Here” is my vision for a campaign to increase the cybersecurity awareness of the American public. The objective of this campaign is to build a general security consciousness among the American public through communication via a portal web site, advertising and public relations, Web 2.0 presence, and face-to-face interactions. The term “cybersecurity” conjures up images of complex networks and rooms aglow with monitors and buzzing with computing power. Cybersecurity sounds like a term for government and big business. However, the reality is that cybersecurity impacts all of our lives and we all have the ability and the need to take steps to protect our computers, ourselves, and even our Nation.

The general, non-technical public, is the primary target of this communication. The campaign also recognizes two key sub-groups of the American public: small businesses and students. In addition, this campaign makes considerations for educating the general news media on cybersecurity issues in order for these outlets to improve their coverage of the topic. This campaign will reach the American public with practical and ready-to-implement suggestions for integrating cybersecurity into the everyday computing experience.

A key to the long range success of the Cybersecurity Starts Here message is encouraging a nationwide dialogue on cybersecurity and engaging the public in face-to-face conversations on cybersecurity will help achieve this goal. The centerpiece is creating a “Cybersecurity Ambassadors Program” comprised  of people who work in IT (ex. IT specialists, ISOs, CIOs, system administrations, IT security specialists, help desk specialists), people who have an interest in IT security (ex. police personnel), or people who have a special relationship with a target public (ex. educators, school administrators, teen mentors, college residence life staff, small business support organizations) who want to build the cybersecurity awareness in their workplace, community, church, civic group, etc.

The campaign will be integrated into DHS’s cybersecurity public awareness efforts. Says Short: “It will be very cool to see my ideas implemented.” The other Challenge winners were:

Best Iconic and Overall Structure – Deloitte “Think Before You Click”

The Best Iconic and Overall Structure submission was Deloitte for their Cybersecurity call-to-action and “Think Before You Click” campaign. In addition to proposing creative messaging and tag lines, innovative marketing strategies and calls to action, Deloitte proposed a symbolic icon to help drive awareness and recognition of the campaign for adults and young adults, as well as a character to drive cyber awareness with kids.

Best Local/community Plan – eCity San Diego and MyMaine Privacy

For the Best Local/Community Plan, Securing Our eCity San Diego and MyMainePrivacy were both selected as winners. Both proposals offered innovated strategies for grassroots collaborative approaches with state and local government, public and private sector, and the academic community through their online classroom style trainings.

Most Creative – Beekeeper Group and LegalNetWORKs “Trot Against Bots”

For Most Creative, the submission from Beekeeper Group and LegalNetWORKS for their “Trot Against Bots” awareness 5K was selected. The strategy acknowledges that planned road races by their very nature close down city streets for a period of a few hours, and proposes working with local officials to organize a 5K in a city that would illustrate how a single runner (symbolizing a botnet) may not shut down traffic, but a group can (vehicle traffic would symbolize Internet traffic).

Best Educational plan – Penn State “CyberLink Games”

Penn State’s proposal was selected as the Best Educational Plan, for their CyberLink Games, which are aimed at improving Internet security. There are two games—CyberLink Duo helps players understand how society views cybersecurity risk and CyberLink Solo helps to educate players on the latest information from experts on cybersecurity threats.

Best Publicity and Marketing – CISCO “Cybersecurity is Everyone’s Responsibility”

Cisco Systems’ proposal was selected as the Best Publicity and Marketing plan for their “Cybersecurity is Everyone’s Responsibility” campaign. An overarching theme of the National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign is creating a balance between Internet safety as a personal responsibility and a shared responsibility. The awareness campaign Cisco proposed aligns with this goal by creating an educational cybersecurity portal and a cybersecurity “IQ challenge,” and utilizing print, radio, TV and online advertisements to drive awareness of these programs.

Thanks to Bill Cumming for sending me the memo; he will be writing about it on his Vacation Lane Blog.

Though Napolitano’s memo has broad policy implications, I wanted to mention (due to the focus of this blog) a particular aspect — the involvement of the public in emergency drills which has been advocated by this blog. As the beginning of the memo, Napolitano writes:

A national exercise program must focus not only on the front lines of prevention, protection, response and recovery–our nation’s first responders-but also engage elected and appointed leadership at all levels of government, the public [my italics] and the private sector.

However, the rest of the memo does not mention any civilian involvement in the exercises. Though I would imagine that this will be worked out as the drilling program is fleshed out. As I have written extensively on the blog, I feel that including the public in these drills is useful both for the first responders and citizens.

Most every top national and local government preparedness official I’ve spoken to believes that preparedness drills for the public would increase citizen readiness and engagement. The difficulty of course is organizing these events. So, if the government is going to undertake major exercises, the opportunity should not be lost to involve the citizenry. Short of an actual incident, a drill is the best way to get people to think through what they would do if something actually happened. (Of course, the surprise or “no notice” drills might be difficult to integrate civilians who are not ordinarily on site but where possible citizens should be included.) It’s an issue that this blog will be following closely.

Napolitano’s memo comes in the context of a debate in the emergency management community about drilling policy as described in an article in April by the Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu:

The decisions are playing into a quiet debate about the future of the large-scale national exercises. Convinced that the drills are the best way to determine whether the nation is prepared for a disaster, some emergency planners and state officials say they fear that as the federal government cuts costs, it may dumb down the tests so participants will pass them more easily. Shying away from the toughest problems, they say, risks repeating the mistakes that were made after Hurricane Katrina, when an unprepared White House and Louisiana governor clashed over who was in charge, how to allocate resources and whether to send in the military.

White House officials and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano say they are trying to improve the national exercises, not undercut them. The drills have grown into unrealistic, costly and over-scripted productions, Napolitano has said, an “elaborate game” rather than opportunities for officials to work through problems.

In the memo, Napolitano asked FEMA’s Fugate to:

Develop a two-year progressive exercise program that increases the total number of exercises and culminates in a full-scale, biennial intergovernmental National Level Exercise (NLE). A progressive exercise program should consist of a series of much more frequent, smaller-scale drills, tabletops, and functional exercises, culminate in a single national level full-scale exercise…

Drills should be primarily no notice, or limited notice, and be conducted periodically during the two-year cycle by partners across DHS and the interagency, focusing on testing a single specific operation or function…

The capstone event ofthe progressive exercise program should be a full-scale intergovernmental National Level Exercise combining the elements and progressive lessons ofthe various drills, tabletops, and functional exercises into a multiday, intergovernmental exercise. This should combine the functional decision-making elements with actual ’boots-on-the-ground’ responders, with exercise elements driven by field actions rather than purely by scripted injects…

I understand that under the current National Exercise Program, NLEs are conducted every 12 months, and that much work and planning has gone into NLE11. Additionally, I believe it is important that a two-year progressive series build from exercise to exercise and function as a coherent, progressive whole, based on objectives and not simply scenarios. I further direct FEMA to conduct a cyber terrorism exercise as planned for NLE 12, and with the exception of the biennial nature of the culminating exercise, to adhere to the above principles in total. In the design of a National Exercise Program, FEMA should plan for the implementation ofa two-year progressive program to commence with the beginning of calendar year 2013.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has just begun rolling out a national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, and I saw its new advertising posters in many of the cars. I had been at DHS headquarters earlier in the day hearing more about the new launch from officials managing the program. They weren’t sure how extensive distribution has gotten thus far, and my e-mail tip confirmed that the ads were at least up all over my train. Below are a couple of the new posters hot off the presses:

A new “If You See Something, Say Something” poster just going up on Amtrak trains aimed at the public.

The national expansion of New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign is part of DHS’s new effort to support state and local law enforcement, community groups and the public in identifying and mitigating terror threats whose theme is “Homeland security begins with hometown security”.

The new measures are based on recommendations made by the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) “Countering Violent Extremism” Working Group—comprised of chiefs of police, sheriffs, community leaders and homeland security experts—on ways DHS can better support community-based efforts to combat violent extremism in the United States.

Expanding the community and citizen role in homeland security has been encouraged by the blog, and I think it is a terrific development. Most of the new initiatives are directed towards bolstering the work of state and local law enforcement organizations — including a series of regional summits beginning this fall on successful community-oriented policing and other crime reduction programs. But Napolitano also announced some proposals focused directly on the public, most prominently the expansion of “See Something, Say Something”.

In the coming months, DHS will continue to rollout the campaign nationally the U.S. with public education materials, the poster ads and other outreach tools to engage travelers, businesses, community organizations and public and private sector employees to remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe. The focus on the state, local and public reflects an increased threat coming out of communities from around the U.S., which might not fully hit the national intelligence radar.

Poster for general aviation locations

The campaign posters will begin to become ubiquitous in the transportation sector, including on trains, general aviation sites and soon on buses and subways. It has been developed to be customizable by location. For example, in cities one of the taglines is: ”did you see something suspicious commuting to work or grabbing some lunch” along with a local contact phone number. Officials from many sports facilities and college campuses have also expressed interest in taking advantage of the campaign for their locations.

The new blue “if you SEE something logo SAY something” logo — which is a little softer and less visibly urgent than the original New York executions with yellow background and block black lettering (but now also blue) — was created by a designer at the Transportation Security Administration. If you’ve ’seen’ the new ads yourself, what do you ’say’ about them?

“Homeland security begins with hometown security, and our efforts to confront threats in our communities are most effective when they are led by local law enforcement and involve strong collaboration with the communities and citizens they serve,” said Napolitano. The announcement came in conjunction with last evening’s “National Night Out”.

The new measures are based on recommendations made by the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) “Countering Violent Extremism” Working Group—comprised of chiefs of police, sheriffs, community leaders and homeland security experts—on ways DHS can better support community-based efforts to combat violent extremism in the United States. Secretary Napolitano asked the HSAC to work with state and local law enforcement, as well as relevant community groups to develop and provide these recommendations, six months ago.

The expansion of the community and citizen role in homeland security has been encouraged by the blog, and I think yesterday’s announcement is a terrific development.

Most of the new initiatives are directed towards bolstering the work of state and local law enforcement organizations — including a series of regional summits beginning this fall on successful community-oriented policing and other crime reduction programs. But Napolitano also announced some proposals focused directly on the public:

To increase public awareness and preparedness about signs of criminal activity and violent extremism, DHS continues to expand its national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign in coordination with law enforcement, the private sector, and community groups, integrating this effort with the National Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative and the transportation, sports, travel, and law enforcement sectors.

In the coming months, DHS will continue to expand the campaign nationally with public education materials, advertisements and other outreach tools to engage travelers, businesses, community organizations and public and private sector employees to remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping the country safe.

And, I would suggest that DHS officials include the public, when possible, in some of the terror prevention information sharing programs for local and state law enforcement announced yesterday, such as:

DHS will produce a series of unclassified case studies examining recent incidents involving violent crime and terrorism to educate and inform state and local law enforcement personnel and community members about common behaviors and indicators exhibited by the suspects.

DHS will produce a series of intelligence products regarding tactics, techniques and plans of international and domestic terrorist organizations—including the recruitment and training of individuals living in the United States – to better inform state and local law enforcement personnel about threats facing the homeland and their local communities.

We will be continuing to closely cover these initiatives on the blog as they develop.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Washington, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier yesterday announced a series of new community-focused, anti-terror measures (Associated Press photo).

One such idea — streamlining the onerous Congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — was discussed in a recent National Public Radio story, “Who Oversees Homeland Security? Um, Who Doesn’t?”

Currently, there are 108 U.S. House & Senate committees, subcommittees and caucuses that get briefings or hear testimony from DHS officials on Capitol Hill. There is bipartisan agreement from Homeland Security officials from both the Bush and Obama Administrations that the present  setup not only takes up too much time but more importantly also leads to policy confusion. Streamlining oversight was actually a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission in 2004, but no action has been forthcoming. (And, in fact, the number of congressional panels has gone up from 86 to the current 108 since then.) According to the NPR piece:

Advocates of streamlining, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) who chairs the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, say there is a perfectly good model for overseeing the sprawling Department of Homeland Security. It’s the way the Congress oversees the Defense Department.

“We have one Senate Armed Services Committee,” he says. “It oversees the entire Department of Defense, which has a budget, oh probably 15 times the size of the DHS budget. So this is doable.”

Despite the bipartisan agreement that the current oversight does not serve the nation’s security or preparedness, Lieberman told NPR he doesn’t expect any action. That is, he says, unless the president and the Homeland Security secretary choose to make a big issue of it.

Or, I would add, if individual citizens also tell their elected representatives they support a change.

The 108 Congressional committees, subcommittees and caucuses that officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security must report to (Graphic: Adrienne Wollman/NPR)

I am supportive of this new initiative. But I received two critical comments on the post, which I think nicely represent the skepticism that a good deal of the public has about these citizen terrorism awareness campaigns. They prompted me to write this separate post pointing out the difficult (yet do-able) challenge facing DHS and FEMA in designing both the content and then carefully implementing a meaningful program.

(This skepticism will only be increased by the publication this week of a major Washington Post series, “Top Secret America”, which will raise more questions among the public about the need to further expand security. Its thesis: ”The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”)

The two comments I received last week on the blog post:

“Hmmm, to what extent do these programs produce valuable intelligence versus wasting law enforcement time and effort and infringing citizen privacy and rights by putting public security surveillance in the hands (and eyes) of untrained people.” (Roberto)

“FEMA is wasting tax money by interfering with local law enforcement citizens and law enforcement have already demonstrated capacity to respond but FEMA has not FEMA needs to do what it is qualified to do: write checks.” (Dr. Marchand)

These are typical of the reaction I hear from some Americans — coming from all political stripes — who question such a citizen role whether it be for philosophical or logistical reasons. It echoes the feedback Janet Napolitano heard last year at a major speech on public involvement in homeland security she made at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A small portion of her remarks that morning touched on her plans to have the agency take “a much closer look at how we can support and inform our greatest asset, individual citizens, and with them the private sector. You are the ones who know if something is not right in your communities, such as a suspicious package or unusual activity…with basic training, every one of us can become better first preventers as well as first responders.”

Afterwards, it was a little surprising but revelatory that the much of the question-and-answer portion was taken up by audience members expressing concern about that making Americans better “first preventers” might impinge on civil liberties. And, this was from a politically friendly and highly sophisticated crowd.

So, as DHS and FEMA start planning how to expand the program, I wanted to relay the input I have received on this issue. These comments have only reinforced my reporting that it will be challenging to develop and implement a program that really does capitalize on the public as a homeland asset but does so in a careful, sensitive and useful way. It will require research on how these unfamiliar threats should be best communicated to the public using new technologies.

It will need to show specifically how the public can be helpful in helping law enforcement and share more success stories as models. And, it should emphasize that any anti-terror initiative will ask the same things of the citizenry that many of us are already doing in our communities on crime prevention as part of efforts like Neighborhood Watch.

The Washington Post series will undoubtedly raise questions about creating even more security initiatives and might have an impact on the development of the national “See Something, Say Something” campaign. But I think that would be a mistake. There is a need to further involve the public as an asset in the nation’s homeland security. But what it does underscore is that any program needs to have a sharp focus, clear objectives, ongoing communication and followup if it is to work.

Napolitano made the announcement in New York City’s Penn Station at the beginning of a daylong train tour down the northeastern corridor highlighting rail security.

The “See Something” campaign was initially created by New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority; it received a lot of attention recently when vendors in Times Square tipped off police to a bombing attempt.

According to the DHS press release:

In the coming months, DHS will expand the “See Something, Say Something” campaign nationally with public education materials, advertisements and other outreach tools to continue engaging travelers, businesses, community organizations, and public and private sector employees to remain vigilant and play an active role in keeping our country safe.

I think the expansion of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign is a terrific development that this blog has long been advocating for. I would suggest that the campaign be more specific and robust in explaining what the public should be seeing and saying if it is to be most effective. There is a need to better educate citizens about what “somethings” to look for in part by offering more instances of successful civilian tips.

In addition to the “See Something, Say Something” announcement, Napolitano held a swearing-in for the new head of the Transportation Security Administration John Pistole inside Penn Station waiting area.

…was created to establish formal standards for reporting suspicious activity and information sharing between law enforcement agencies. SARs contain information that might suggest terrorist or other criminal planning or intelligence gathering activity. Alert citizens who notice suspicious activity possess critical knowledge, and this information can be used to uncover potential threats, if shared with the proper authorities.

Appropriately, privacy and civil liberty protections are critical SAR requirements. We have a duty to ensure that our policies against alleged criminals do not harm or alienate innocent people. In furtherance of these protections, SARs inherently support objective analysis. They are centered on activity; behavior is the driver, not race, nationality or religion.

Enhancing the SAR effort, the Los Angeles Police Department recently launched “iWatch.” This community initiative educates the public about suspicious behaviors and how to report them. A simple phone call or report may lead to actions that disrupt a terrorist attack. The iWatch program, easily adaptable to other municipalities, is expected to spread nationwide.

I was struck to read that Southers feels that iWatch-type programs — which give the public more information about what kind of terrorist behavior they should be noticing — will be implemented across the U.S. I think that would be a terrific development for which this blog has been advocating over the past couple years. The question is whether that is going to happen on a national level through DHS and the FBI and/or through local/state authorities. I would argue that it requires both.

I think a first step would be to better explain to the public and the media what the SAR’s are, what the SAR initiative is and what is the role of citizens in homeland security. To get and maintain public buy-in, it is important that there is followup when possible. Southers gives an example of a successful citizen tip though it didn’t get all that much attention:

This month, two New Jersey men were arrested at JFK airport, planning to travel to Somalia to “wage violent jihad.” They also had expressed a willingness to commit violent acts in the United States. Both men were American citizens. The FBI received a tip regarding the men’s activities in October 2006. In the intelligence community, that tip is called a “SAR” – Suspicious Activity Report.

That is not a well known story. It should be. These examples of citizen tips helping authorities need to told (when possible) in a bigger way to the public and the media so Americans understand and don’t dismiss their role. The full article can be read here.

However, despite reports that the terror threat to the U.S. is increasing and experts extolling the importance of citizen awareness, there hasn’t yet been a subsequent effort to try to broaden or improve civilian involvement.

There are some training materials for citizens that are publicly available which have had limited release, but government officials are not publicizing them widely. It’s as if we’re only going halfway on citizen involvement even with the new emphasis on the public’s role and the rising threat. One of the resources is a video I recently posted produced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “What’s in Store: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events,” aimed at helping employees spot suspicious activity. This video was made for the retail industry, but the “suspicious activity” examples shown include mall customers making observations, and so it would be useful for any citizen to see.

DHS’ “suspicious behavior” training video, “What’s In Store: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events” (above)

Another useful ‘tips’ video was produced by the Denver’s Center for Empowered Living & Learning (CELL), “Recognizing 8 Signs of Terrorism,” narrated by former NFL star quarterback John Elway to help citizens identify signs of terrorist activity.

“Recognizing 8 Signs of Terrorism” video (above)

Both of these videos are publicly available, but neither has been highlighted by officials nor has their specific content been widely distributed. One major city, however, has launched a major public awareness/tips campaign with more specifics. The Los Angeles Police Department’s iWatch program offers a list of “suspicious behaviors” that citizens should be aware of along with a series of videos.

Los Angeles Police Department iWatch community training video (above)

There is a major caveat in any expansion of the citizen role. It is crucial that in empowering the public to play a role in the nation’s homeland security that we do not overdue things. There is a balance between informed/engaged and paranoid/overaggressive. However, I think is important that if indeed security officials believe that average citizens are integral to the nation’s safety then they should further educate them so they can be the most useful. The initiatives listed above offer the kind of information and training that I think would be helpful, and I hope that officials will begin broadening their use to the citizenry.

“We all share the responsibility to fight terror and criminal misconduct. But as someone who works in a store, mall, shopping center, or market, you have an obligation to help. Because sometimes ordinary people can stop extraordinary events…

When you witness things like this people leaving packages or bags behind…strangers taking photographs or video…drivers leaving vehicles in odd places the temptation will be strong. You will want to ignore your instincts…turn away…assume someone else will act if necessary. But the threat is real. Report suspicious behavior.”

This video was made for the retail industry, but the “suspicious activity” examples shown include mall customers making observations, and so it would be useful for any citizen to see. I have argued previously for an expansion of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign by giving the public more information. This type of video offers the type of more specific guidance I would suggest be provided to the broader population.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s “What’s in Store: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Events” training video.

The National Terror Alert reports that DHS held a conference call last week asking the retail sector to heighten its level of awareness and report anything suspicious to law enforcement. The video is meant to be used as a training tool:

According to the Department of Homeland Security, businesses have to operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.” They also said U.S. officials “lack insights in specific details, timing and intended targets,” but trends indicate terrorists are looking for “smaller, more achievable attacks against easily accessible targets.”

During the call with business leaders, Homeland Security officials requested private sector companies to consider the following points:

*Institute aggressive awareness campaigns

*Identify entrance areas where crowds will collect and common traffic choke points exist.

*Pre-identify primary and secondary evacuation routes.

*Look at how you asses unattended vehicles in your area.

*Vary security patrol and surveillance routines.

*Rely on the people working in your buildings and stores every day. These folks will be more aware of things out of place in their normal environment.

*Remain alert for potential secondary devices. (In one case, small devices were used to force an evacuation, then larger devices were triggered to kill people.)

“What’s In Store” is one of several instructional videos that can be found on DHS’ Commercial Facilities Sector Training & Resources webpage.

A selection committee from across the Department will select the best ideas and will incorporate them into a national public education campaign to be launched in the fall. The Challenge is open to Americans of all ages with parental consent required for participants under the age of 18. Proposals should be submitted electronically by April 30, 2010.

Selected participants of the Challenge will be invited to an event in Washington, DC, at their own expense, in late May or early June. Selected participants may be invited to work with the Department in the planning of the National Cybersecurity Awareness Campaign that will launch during National Cybersecurity Awareness Month in October. For more information on entering the challenge, click here.

At the beginning of her remarks, Napolitano interestingly cited Secretary of State George Marshall’s famous address to Harvard graduates in 1947 in which he announced the Marshall Plan for post-war reconstruction:

“Marshall described the scale of devastation after WWII, and told the students,

‘the problem is one of such enormous complexity that the very mass of facts presented to the public by press and radio make it exceedingly difficult for the man in the street to reach a clear appraisement of the situation.’

Today, America’s challenges are quite different. And in our information age, so too are the ways the person in the street gets their information. But George Marshall’s central point still rings true. And, arguably, it’s more important than ever that our citizens have a clear understanding of today’s security challenges.

Tonight, I want to share that ‘clear appraisement of the situation’ because I believe the American people want, and deserve, candor about what we face. I will talk about the threats we’re seeing at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), what we’re doing to confront them, and what I think every American can do to help.”

She explained that DHS has organized itself to confront four categories of threats: foreign terrorism, “home-based” terrorism, cyber terrorism, and

“Finally, I would add a fourth kind of concern we’re trying to counteract—and that’s the threat of complacency and of unrealistic expectations. Since I became Secretary more than a year ago, I’ve emphasized that the American people need to be prepared, not scared.

But rejecting the politics of fear doesn’t mean the threats are any less real, or that we shouldn’t consider what they mean for our families and our communities. In a world of fast-changing threats, we simply must resist the urge to become complacent or cynical about what’s before us. We must not leave ourselves, our families, and our communities less than fully prepared.”

In order to better prepare the public, Napolitano said government has to better inform them about those threats. But acknowledged that there is still a ways to go.

“…to fight against complacency, and make our nation more ready and resilient, we’re working to engage and empower the public to take the most basic steps: to get an emergency kit, make an emergency plan, and be informed. Are we there yet? The short answer is no. We need all families, all communities, all of our businesses, to be talking about their plans, and thinking about how to get smarter and better equipped to deal with a range of potential emergencies. How do we get there? Well, the government certainly has a role, and part of that role is being straight about the nature of the threats we face…”

I would argue — and have on the blog, including this past week — that to “get there” when it comes to engaging and empowering the public the Administration needs to provide Americans with more specific information about those challenges. It is not enough to say Americans face nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical threats without specifically explaining what they would entail and how would the public be expected to deal with them. That is not an easy conversation, but it’s necessary.

Another important theme of the speech was tempering the expectations for the public about what can and cannot be done when it comes to a potential terrorist attack on U.S. soil, a break from the Bush Administration’s public approach:

In the past, we’ve heard some argue that to defeat terrorism, the government has to be right 100 percent of the time, while the terrorists only have to be right once. I reject that premise. We can’t put a dome over our country. We can’t guarantee there won’t be another attack. No one can.

But we are a strong, resilient country. And we must resolve that even a successful attack will not be a defeat for our way of life. We can target our resources against emerging threats and evolving risks. We can better empower the American public, and draw on what President Obama has called our greatest national security asset: our values.

We must then leverage the shared American values that have led us to victory before. Every single one of us can become smarter, can become better informed, and better prepared. But that becomes possible when the “man on the street” knows and understand the kinds of threats I’ve described tonight.

On a concrete level, Americans have to work to build preparedness—to ensure that our communities are prepared to address any danger that comes their way, from terrorist threats to natural disasters. On a more abstract level, Americans also must work to build resilience—the ability to get up and come back stronger if we get hit.”

This speech picked up from another major address on terrorism also aimed in large part at the public that Napolitano delivered last year at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Janet Napolitano At The Kennedy School Of Government (Photo: The Harvard Crimson)

Today, NAPA released its own report on the Dialogue process summarizing the feedback and offering lessons that can guide similar future efforts by DHS and other government entities. It’s an very good piece that should be reviewed not only by those in the homeland security business but anyone interested in opening government up to the public and other stakeholders. Many of the report’s recommendations are aimed at building upon the dialogue to expand outreach and engagement.

If you were one of 20,000 Americans who took part in any of the Dialogue’s three rounds, you will be interested to read in the report some of the ways that the stakeholder input impacted the development of the QHSR document. For example, in the first round, the QHSR study group panel reported:

• Users identified ambiguous terms in several vision statements and goals which they felt might cause confusion. Examples include “malicious actors” and “man made hazards,” both of which were included in Counterterrorism mission area statements.

• One of the most highly rated ideas was that DHS goals follow the “SMART” method of goal-setting: to ensure that goals are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based.

• Users identified consistency gaps among mission areas. For example, some goals are naturally shared between the Counterterrorism and Disasters; yet some were listed under one area but not the other.

• Several users suggested that “mitigation” be added as a goal for Disasters.

• Users suggested that some Immigration goals did not seem to fit within the scope of the mission area.

These suggestions were integrated into the second round of the Dialogue and the following stakeholder ideas resulted:

• Counterterrorism generated ideas that ranged from broad, strategic suggestions—such as focusing on eliminating causes of terrorism, including finance—to more discrete, practical ones, such as using strapping machines to secure luggage.

• As for Immigration, participants discussed the necessity of including public education as a benefit of immigration to society. Many ideas also referenced worksite enforcement of immigration laws, some of which could have been due to the influx of users from communities that support immigration limits.

• The 287(g) program provided the most salient discussion for Borders.

• Disasters had the most focused group of participants; it had the fewest number of users contributing ideas to other areas and the highest number of users who only prioritized disasters. Given this dynamic, ideas were very detailed and well developed. They included suggestions to align funding with community-wide interoperable communications and institute a “national preparedness mindset” that would inculcate preparedness into American life. Discussion also centered on the need to define “resilience” and incorporate the concept into this mission area.

• Suggestions for Risk Assessment included a proposal to incorporate risk perception analysis into risk analysis, development of a taxonomy of strategic opportunities under the Risk Assessment, and widespread discussion of the need to increase intelligence and information sharing.

• Planning and Capabilities generated comments on ways to expand the exercise and include more stakeholders, improve internal human capital standards, and integrate funding into goals, objectives, and planning discussions.

It will be fascinating to see if and how the recommendations for increasing stakeholder engagement in homeland security and other governmental policy will be implemented. This report will definitely offer terrific guidance for those efforts.

This blog has recommended that the Secretary create a task force on citizen and community preparedness so I think this is positive development. I also hope that citizen perspectives be reflected in the deliberations and ultimate recommendations. The members of the panel are a quality cross section of officials from throughout the nation. And, they will bring their experience as professionals as well as citizens to the task force. Yet sometimes it can be difficult for them to completely take off their official hats and put on their citizen ones in developing preparedness policy. So, I definitely suggest they make sure to elicit public input as part of their work. I look forward to following the task force’s activities.

considering whether to scale back next year’s National Level Exercise, the annual drill [previously called "TOPOFF"] that for the past decade has been a cornerstone of the nation’s efforts to prepare for a catastrophic terrorist attack or natural disaster…

White House officials and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano say they are trying to improve the national exercises, not undercut them. The drills have grown into unrealistic, costly and over-scripted productions, Napolitano has said, an “elaborate game” rather than opportunities for officials to work through problems.

The Administration’s reevaluation on training exercises comes after officials cancelled a planned major drill involving a mock ‘dirty bomb’ explosion in Las Vegas next month after Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) complained that it would scare tourists from visiting the city. As I wrote in a post last November, “What Happens In Vegas (Might Be Less Serious If Major FEMA Nuke Attack Exercise) Stays In Vegas”, I thought cancelling the Sin City exercise was misguided and an

example of how the public is too often infantilized when it comes to information on serious terrorist threats, including weapons of mass destruction — And, as a result, why we as citizens are not as prepared or as informed as we should be…the contention that somehow having a practice drill with a nuclear weapon would scare Americans from traveling to Vegas.

It just plays into the narrative (I would say canard) that the public cannot handle any discussion of serious potential terror threats (particularly involving weapons of mass destruction) without becoming scared out of their wits. And as a result, it prevents our leaders from having an open dialogue which might actually improve our ability to respond to a scenario.

In fact, I believe these large scale disaster drills should actually be used as an opportunity to better engage and inform the public, something that to date they have not been. Whatever model of emergency exercises are chosen after the current Administration debate, I feel strongly that the public should somehow be involved when they are carried out.

Most every top national and local government preparedness official I’ve spoken to believes that preparedness drills for the public would increase citizen readiness and engagement. The difficulty of course is organizing these events. So, if the government is going to undertake major exercises, the opportunity should not be lost to involve the citizenry. Short of an actual incident, a drill is the best way to get people to think through what they would do if something actually happened.

According to the Post article, the Obama Administration is considering making more of the drills surprises rather than being planned in advance, which some believe is a better way to test preparedness. That seems to make sense, but I think there is some value to having at least one scheduled exercise that might include the public and be a galvanizing day for U.S. preparedness. These national level drills are first and foremost to train government officials and responders, but why not also include citizens in some way. I believe that doing so would not only help the public get ready but would also be a useful addition to the exercises.

Next Month’s Scheduled National Level Exercise Was Not Welcome In Las Vegas

MARCHERS AT TODAY’S VETERANS DAY PARADE ON FIFTH AVENUE IN NEW YORK CITY

A relatively big (though not nearly big enough) and emotional crowd lined the parade route shouting “thank you” to the marching veterans, young and old. There were also a number of home-made “thank you” signs (below).

On this day, I wanted to mention a couple of initiatives by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the American Red Cross. DHS yesterday launched a new website designed to provide a one-stop location for veterans and veterans organizations to learn about veteran hiring and contracting opportunities as well as how to get involved in community-based efforts such as Citizen Corps.

The site, at www.dhs.gov/veterans, features information for veterans about how to find employment opportunities at DHS, ways to get involved in community-based efforts like Citizen Corps (list here), and special veteran programs such as Operation Warfighter and Wounded Warrior, which provide employment opportunities for severely wounded or recovering service members to assist their transition back to the military or civilian workforce.

DHS’ civilian workforce includes approximately 47,000 veterans, comprising 25 percent of all employees in addition to the 42,000 active duty members of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Also, today the Red Cross launched their program, “Holiday Mail For Heroes,” which solicits cards for the military and their family. If you are interested in participating, send your cards to this address:

Holiday Mail for Heroes

P.O. Box 5456

Capitol Heights, MD 20791-5456

Once the cards arrive at the Red Cross chapters, they are sorted and reviewed by volunteers who then distribute them to service members, their families and veterans in communities across the country. For more information, go to www.redcross.org/holidaymail.

And again, thank you.

Napolitano is right. If there’s one preparedness-related task Americans should do first it’s asking (and then trying to answer) that simple question — what would my family do in the event of an emergency? But I would suggest that simple question is not so simple for individuals to answer by themselves. Family emergency planning cannot totally be done in the family vacuum. To do it most effectively, citizens also need to know the plans of the institutions they are involved with — their workplace, kids’ school, elderly relative’s nursing home, governmental authorities, neighbors, etc.

In a recent National Preparedness Month speech, Napolitano made another related request of the public: that they go to some of those institutions, “raise your hand and ask ‘what’s our plan?’” (FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate has been emphasizing the primacy of planning in his public statements as well.)

I think that both of the questions Napolitano suggests Americans ask are closely tied and should be answered together. In fact, I don’t think you can really develop your own plan without knowing what the other places are doing. (And, I would further suggest that the lack of citizen compliance to date is that we don’t think that doing our own plan individually — without other stakeholders — will be all that useful in an emergency with family members spread all over.)

As part of that process it’s also up to governments, particularly at a local level, to tell the public more about their emergency plans to help us make ours. The idea is not that members of the public know every scenario but that they are at least familiar with what the possibilities are — that they are not hearing it for the first time after something happens. A survey released Friday by the National Homeland Defense Foundation and Colorado Technical University found that 94 percent of homeland security professionals don’t think Americans know the appropriate steps to take if a terrorist attack were to happen in their hometown.

DHS SECRETARY NAPOLITANO (ABOVE) GIVING A NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH SPEECH WITH FEMA ADMINISTRATOR CRAIG FUGATE AND AMERICAN RED CROSS PRESIDENT GAIL MCGOVERN LOOKING ON.

And, the planning process should not be a one-way and top-down. The public should have input on not only their own plans. In addition, to the knowledge they can impart, institutions should not be designing plans that may not be realistic for the people they are planning for.

Take the issue of pet preparedness and response. Animal protection groups made the point that it was not realistic to plan that pet owners would be willing to leave their animals in an emergency (a contention borne out during Katrina and something I have witnessed during CERT deployments on building collapses here in New York City). So, many governments altered their policies to allow pets in emergency shelters (though they would still prefer owners make out of area arrangements if possible on predicted disasters like hurricanes.) That change in policy only came when all stakeholders came together and thought through the planning and realized that the ideal was not the reality. The same kind of attention is now necessary for the entire public.

The fact that every family’s plan involves other parts of the community is why I strongly believe that there needs to be one day in the year dedicated to the emergency planning process. If we as a nation feel it is really important for the public to develop emergency plans, it would be far more effective if everyone was doing that at the same time — rather than asking individuals to do it on their own so the planning can be integrated. This ‘preparedness day’ would also be the time that we all asked the questions about planning then practiced and updated those plans. (One helpful model is Japan’s Disaster Prevention Day, held on the anniversary of the catastrophic 1923 Tokyo earthquake.)

Among the questions that will come out of that type of drilling day include: Where would you go? Would it depend on the type of emergency? Would you be able to get out of work? Would your kids’ school want you to come there? One, if not the most important, question to answer is how would you communicate with each other as well as how would the authorities communicate with you as information may be the most crucial element in determining the answers (one result I think would be more social media/networking preparedness/training in advance.)

The fact is that families will never be able to fully answer all these ‘what if’ questions in advance; it will always depend to some extent on circumstances (ie. evacuating vs. sheltering in place), but this day would at least begin the preparedness process.  It would be the time to think through some scenarios and link together some of the institutions/people families would need to rely on in a disaster. Ultimately, if we want people to ask the right questions on emergency preparedness, we need to help them find the answers.

First, the agency will be holding a series of public meetings throughout the U.S. on the Department of Homeland Security’s Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and Certification Program (PS-Prep). PS-Prep is a partnership between DHS and the private sector that will enable private entities — including businesses, non-profit organizations and universities — to receive emergency preparedness certification.

The purpose of these meetings is to offer the public an opportunity to participate in the development of this new program. The schedule can be found here. For more information on PS-Prep.

FEMA also announced another feedback opportunity for the public. For the next 30 days, interested parties can visit www.fema.gov/nfipcomments to provide input and identify challenges regarding the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The new website will be used by the federal government’s newly-formed Long Term Disaster Recovery Working Group—co-chaired by Secretary Donovan and Secretary Napolitano—to allow stakeholders to submit ideas for disaster recovery; articulate objectives for recovery assistance going forward; identify examples of best practices; raise challenges and obstacles to success; and share thoughts, experiences and lessons learned.

“It is vital to our success that disaster recovery professionals and stakeholders provide their input as we move forward to improve disaster recovery efforts across the country,” said Secretary Donovan. “This new website will give everyone involved in disaster recovery a voice in shaping how we respond, and then rebuild and revitalize communities in the wake of disaster.”

“Successful recovery relies on effective collaboration with partners from state, local and tribal governments and the private sector,” said Secretary Napolitano. “This new website will support the federal government’s efforts to enhance our nation’s resiliency in the face of emergencies by engaging directly with our stakeholders.”

Last month, President Obama asked Secretaries Napolitano and Donovan to co-chair the Long Term Disaster Recovery Working Group, comprised of more than 20 federal departments, agencies and offices, to ensure that individuals, communities and the nation’s economy can withstand and rapidly recover from disasters. In order to develop a better national strategy for an effective approach to long-term disaster recovery, the Working Group will:

* Provide operational guidance for Federal, State, Tribal and local authorities to provide for effective and unified disaster recovery. This includes defining roles and responsibilities, detailing recovery management and operational coordination, articulating communications strategies and establishing measurements for success;

* Review disaster recovery programs and the framework of disaster recovery, and identify gaps as well as overlapping and/or conflicting sources of authority for disaster recovery efforts;

* Examine areas for improved interagency planning and collaboration among federal agencies;

* Examine methods to build capacity within State, local and tribal governments as well as within the nonprofit, faith-based, and private sectors; both in recovery operations and in pre-disaster recovery planning; and

* Examine successful practices and lessons learned during previous disaster recovery efforts, with particular attention to catastrophic disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

In addition, Secretaries Donovan and Napolitano will provide the President with recommendations to improve long-term catastrophic disaster recovery and help develop a National Disaster Recovery Framework that will provide detailed operational guidance to recovery organizations under existing authorities.

The Dialogue tool was developed by DHS with the National Academy of Public Administration to help solicit input from stakeholders, including the public, on the “Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR). The QHSR is a congressionally-mandated process which will help guide the nation’s homeland security policies over the next four years. The final report is due on December 31st.

As part of the Dialogue, participants can weigh in on five areas – “Counterterrorism,” “Borders,” “Immigration,” “Disasters,” and “Risk Assessment”. In this round, users are being asked to comment particularly on the “objectives” and “outcomes” that are laid out for each. This public input through the Dialogues has complemented the work of the Department’s own QHSR study groups.

To kick off the third round, DHS held a ‘blogger roundtable’ yesterday with Deputy Assistant Secretary (Strategic Plans) Alan Cohn. There were similar roundtable briefings at the beginning of the first and second Dialogues as well.

During the second round which took place earlier this month, there were 11,000 unique visitors (up from 8,000 in the initial round) who posted 2000 comments, 4000 ratings and 400 ideas, according to Cohn. “We’re extremely happy with the level of public engagement, and we really would like that type of engagement to continue [in the third Dialogue].”

DHS DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY ALAN COHN ANSWERS A QUESTION DURING THE ‘BLOGGER ROUNDTABLE’ TELECONFERENCE AT DHS HEADQUARTERS.

The “Disasters” category (which is formally titled, “Preparing for, Responding to, and Recovering from Disasters”) has evolved through the Dialogue process with the concept of “resilience” becoming fully front and center to the vision, goals, objectives and outcomes. The challenge is fleshing out what “resilience” is, what it means for all the various stakeholders, and how to get there. The Dialogues, according to Cohn, is one way to include the nation in the process of answering those questions. In fact, the entire online project is the most concrete manifestation yet of DHS’ Secretary Janet Napolitano’s oft-expressed commitment to involve the public in making homeland security a “shared responsibility.”

Cohn said that most of the online contributors to the Dialogue have been from some part of the broad homeland security community but that many of them also commented in areas where they are not experts but rather just members of the general public  (ie. dealing with airport security, border crossings).

Other bloggers participating in the ’roundtable’ included: Rich Cooper, Security Debrief; Martin Jones, National Terror Alert; Tracy Johnson, Booz Allen Hamilton; Robin Paoli, Gov Loop; Max Cacas, Federal News Radio; and Chris Bellavita, Homeland Security Watch.

To participate in the third round, go to www.homelandsecuritydialogue.org.

The full speech text has not yet been released but in the Department’s “Leadership Blog,” Napolitano summarized its contents:

“Today, in remarks at the American Red Cross, I’m speaking about another important mission: readiness and resilience. Our nation may be better prepared than we were before 9/11. But there is much more we can – and should – do. And to get there, we must treat our nation’s preparedness as a shared responsibility, one where everyone has a role to play.  Civilians are usually the first to arrive in a crisis, and history shows that they are critical in those important first minutes. And these citizen responders can be an even more potent force by:

Taking CPR training from the Red Cross; Training with a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT); Knowing when to take shelter or evacuate; Pre-planning evacuation routes and where to meet after a disaster strikes

If a disaster struck your hometown, that training, those skills, and those plans would free up first responders and emergency personnel to focus on those most in need.

So today, I’m calling on all Americans, across the country, to do two things.

First, take these basic steps: get an emergency kit; make a family reunification plan; and become informed about the types of emergencies your community is most likely to encounter.

Second, I’m asking all of us who are in book clubs, prayer groups, school boards, alumni associations, or other community organizations, simply to raise your hand and ask, “What’s our plan?”

Together, we can build a culture of readiness and resilience, and together we can build a more secure future.

I think that Napolitano’s emphasis on asking Americans to ask “What’s our plan?” in all aspects of their lives is a good one. It’s catchy, relatively easy remember (and to do) and is something that can have a big impact on a community’s preparedness. Of course, the person who does the asking may find themselves given the responsibility for answering the question for the group. But it is in our own self interest to make sure the places we frequent do have a good answer to the Secretary’s question.

DHS SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO, WITH RED CROSS PRESIDENT GAIL MCGOVERN, AFTER HER SPEECH

A DHS press release also includes some additional Napolitano quotes from the speech which was delivered at the American Red Cross Hall of Service in Washington, D.C. in front of more than 300 volunteers and employees representing the Red Cross, Citizen Corps, and local and regional emergency management agencies:

“When families are prepared—when communities stand together and stand tall—so does our nation,” she said, adding. “United, we send a powerful message to those that seek to do us harm: we cannot be broken, we are America—strong and resilient.”

“America’s history is not written by the tragedies that have befallen us, but by how we responded to them,” said Secretary Napolitano. “Since our earliest days, every time we have been challenged or have seen tragedy, Americans have shown a sense of purpose and resilience.”

“We should measure our nation’s security not just by the borders we strengthen and the laws we enforce, but also by the strength and resilience of the communities we build,” said Secretary Napolitano.

UPDATE: The full transcript can now be found here.

In the speech, she will make a request that citizens: Stand up at school, or at work, or at home, and ask, “What’s our plan?” Napolitano will ask Americans to bring that question up “the next time you attend a meeting at your child’s high school, or at church, or around the dinner table.”

The speech can be viewed live at www.DHS.gov.

Napolitano spoke in Baltimore to the “News & Terrorism: Communicating In A Crisis” program (described in the previous post below). It was the 17th workshop in the series which was created in 2004 by the National Academies of Sciences along with DHS and the Radio Television News Directors Association. After the Secretary’s comments, the participants — mostly local media and government officials —  took part in a tabletop scenario involving multiple terrorist bombings in the Baltimore area. Excerpts from the speech are below:

“…print, television, radio, text, Twitter, et cetera, et cetera—all forms of media—can and need to be an accurate source of information, so that as rumors spread or as conspiracy theories abound, or as fears that we are facing—for example, in the spring, the upcoming death of millions of Americans from the flu— we can begin jointly to get accurate information out and accurate assessments about what the risk really are. And also because I view security as a shared responsibility among individuals, families, businesses, so that people can be properly prepared about what they will need to do…

…I know the goal of today is pretty straightforward—is to more effectively work together during a crisis, specifically a terrorist attack—and those will be important steps to take. What you may want to be thinking about, however, is [how] you handle reporting an alleged terrorist investigation—as the investigation is going on when there has been no actual attack. Because there—there are judgments to be made from the media side as well.

I think one of the values I hope you take away from today is a better mutual understanding of what everybody is doing and what they are coping with. And that leaves from the government side, a better understanding, too, of what the media is coping with—that we will develop out of this some ways to more effectively work together and also, a deeper, more profound understanding of how incidents actually happen and how they are managed from a news perspective.”

SECRETARY NAPOLITANO SPEAKS TO “NEWS & TERRORISM: COMMUNICATING IN A CRISIS” WORKSHOP IN BALTIMORE.

“For example—and I can say this as a former governor and attorney general, and U.S. Attorney—actually, when something happens or—be it caused by nature or caused by terrorists or what have you—the situation will evolve very, very rapidly and it is absolutely 100% the case—and I’ve been involved from everything from the Okalahoma City bombing investigation to the aftermath of 9/11—because out in the states, we didn’t know whether 9/11 was confined to the east, to New York City and Washington, D.C., whether there were other targets around the country—to now the things I deal with as the Secretary of Homeland Security—but in every situation, the facts as originally presented change.

They are not facts. They are data points. And you need to think of it that way and you need to be thinking about—we all need to be thinking about the fact—the fact, that the situation—that these things are going to change. And those decisions will have to be made by people in positions like mine, even when your data points are not complete or they are inconsistent.

So, you’re constantly being forced to make judgment calls based on your best estimate of the data at that particular time. And then, you also have to be flexible enough to change that as you move along. Which means when you have the press conference, you have to be—have some understanding from the media’s side—that that is a snapshot of the data and the decision as it exists at that time—but it may change over time. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

If you make all your decisions and whatever, at the outset of an incident and you don’t change and you don’t adjust as the data becomes more profound, more accurate, more filled in—you’re probably not a very effective decision-maker in a particular situation. So, explaining that and helping the public understand that and not feel that this is something unusual and the people don’t know what they’re doing—that is a very, very important part that media can play—communications can play…

And so, the ability to communicate that things will change without undermining public confidence in what is being done and the ability to communicate scientific or engineering or other types of information is so very, very important. And as we try to do it—and we’ve been working in our own Department on how we do these things—but the media, we hope, is also thinking about that at the same time. So, the point of fact is—is that we can have the best crisis management ever for any crisis, and if the communications isn’t right, or the media isn’t with us, or is viewing it differently, it will be viewed in the aftermath as not successful crisis management.

So, part and parcel of our crisis management is communication with the media and then—hence, the media communication with the public—an effort that we can all always be thinking about in these settings and it’s nice to do it in an enclosed ballroom. Are we going to lock the doors—nobody can get out. No windows, so you can’t be distracted—but to really focus on these things for a bit with some scenarios and people who have the responsibilities here.”